Discriminations

In the immediately preceding post I published the text of a full-page open letter that appears today in the Washington Times arguing that “any immigration reform must address race preferences” and opposing “affirmative action” (preferential treatment) for illegal immigrants.

Now, with comprehensive immigration reform dead, at least for a while, Mark Krikorian asks begins his excellent NRO article, “Amnesty, R.I.P.,” with the following telling question:

How could the Senate amnesty bill have possibly failed? It was supported by the president, the majority party and prominent members of the minority, plus Big Business, Big Labor, Big Media, and Big Religion.

And yet the motion Thursday night to end debate and move to a final vote on the bill was soundly rejected, failing to garner even a majority, let alone the necessary 60 votes.

Krikorian’s answer — “The reason was simple — public outrage”— is of course true, but his question was asked in almost exactly the same terms after Michigan voters decisively endorsed Prop. 2: How, it was asked with incredulity, could a measure barring racial preferences possibly pass, much less with 58% of the vote, when it was opposed by the governor, the leadership of both political parties, churches, labor unions, big business, academia, and the state’s leading newspapers?

The answer, I think, which applies equally to both the successful civil rights proposal and the failed immigration legislation, is that elite America has lost touch with mainstream America over a number of issues implicating fundamental political principles. Regarding civil rights, most Americans, unlike the leaders of most elite and powerful institutions, continue to believe that people should be treated without regard to race. Regarding immigration, most Americans believe that illegal behavior on a massive scale should be stopped and certainly should not be rewarded.

I have discussed this disconnect (and the difference between liberals and conservatives on principles, the rule of law, etc.) recently, here, and the argument in that post has taken on renewed relevance, I think, as a result of amnesty’s demise. (In fact, I was sorely tempted to quote much of it here, but you’ll be glad to see that I resisted the temptation. You can reward my restraint by reading, or re-reading, that post now.)

Although there was plenty of misunderstanding and misrepresentation in the run-up to last night’s immigration vote, I think one institution, the Washington Post, deserves special recognition. Not only was its news coverage often clueless (such as this glowing report that the tide was turning in favor of comprehensive reform), but its aftermath analysis has been equally flawed. Here I was going to criticize two pieces from today’s paper, one by Shailagh Murray and one by Dan Balz, but I now see that Mickey Kaus has done such a thorough, devastating analysis of them that I don’t have anything else to say.

Well, that’s not exactly true. I do have one other thing to say, which is that the WaPo’s after the fact “Analysis” is as clueless as its before the fact news reporting. For example, Balz writes:

Public opinion suggests an electorate open to, but by no means wildly enthusiastic about, comprehensive change that provides the 12 million illegal immigrants a path to citizenship, but only if there is an effective border security plan in place.

Public opinion doesn’t “suggest,” it virtually shouts, that the public wants the borders secured before anything more “comprehensive” is addressed. And what Balz totally misses is that this demand will not be satisfied by “an effective border security plan in place” (my emphasis) but only by effective border security that is demonstrated actually to be working.

As graphically expressed by Scott Sayre, an impressive candidate in my Virginia district who has launched a powerful primary challenge against an incumbent Republican state senator in part because of the latter’s support for in-state tuition for illegals, you can’t change a defective tire while the car’s still rolling. First you have to stop the car.